The map below, created by designer/programmer Lewis Lehe, shows state-by-state felon voting laws and population impacts as reported by the The Sentencing Project, based on 2010 data. Note: among the states that deny voting rights to some felons who have completed the entirety of their sentences (including parole), restrictions vary significantly, and often depend on the severity of the crime.

[See article and infographic below map]

Roughly 5.85 million Americans are not able to vote in the midterm elections due to current or previous felony convictions, according to the Sentencing Project, a criminal justice advocacy group. Of this population, about 75 percent live in the community, and almost half — an estimated 2.6 million people — have completed their sentences altogether but remain disenfranchised in the 12 states with the most restrictive voting policies.

In Florida the state with the highest felon disenfranchisement rate, about 1 in 10 voting-age residents can’t vote because of current or previous sentences, according to the group’s report.

These laws disproportionately impact communities of color, particularly the black population, preventing roughly 1 in 13 voting-age blacks nationwide from casting ballots The rate spikes in states with the most restrictive voting policies: in Florida, Kentucky and Virginia, for instance, more than 20 percent of voting-age blacks are disenfranchised due to felony convictions.

In the infographic below, the Sentencing Project shows the extent to which felony disenfranchisement could potentially impact today’s election results.

Love ‘em or hate ‘em, propositions are an entrenched part of California’s political system. In nearly every statewide election, voters wade through a slurry of local and statewide ballot measures, part of a system intended to expand direct democracy. Some are really complicated, some are controversial, and some are just kind of weird (like when voters passed Prop 6 in 1998, making it a felony for anyone to use a horse for meat — including a pony, donkey or mule, or this year’s failed effort to get a measure on the ballot to split California into six states). In next week’s midterm election, Californians will decide on six statewide propositions, in addition to a likely host of county and local measures.

So how do propositions actually make it onto the ballot? What are the different types? And what exactly is a referendum anyway? Comic journalist Andy Warner demystifies the Golden State’s century-old process.

Voting for the first time can be exciting, empowering and — if you head to the polls without doing your homework — downright daunting. That’s especially true in California, where voters are typically asked to weigh in on a litany of issues and candidates for both statewide and local races.

Next week’s midterm election on November 4 is no exception: the ballot is thick and dense, with lots of contests that can seem pretty obscure or just plain irrelevant, particularly for young voters.

With that in mind, a team of researchers at Youth Radio looked over statewide propositions as well as local measures in Bay Area cities, and picked out the handful of races that seemed most directly relevant to young voters. The result: this nifty, interactive guide, boiling down the issues and presenting the pros and cons. Take it with you to the polls (or use it to even find your polling place). For a more detailed rundown of statewide propositions, also check out KQED’s comprehensive election guide.

The upcoming midterms marks the first major nationwide election since the Supreme Court struck down a key piece of the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act. The 2013 decision had an immediate impact, giving a handful of primarily southern states the green light to change their voting rules without first getting approval from the federal government.

And change they have. In the run-up to November 4, there have been a flurry of of lawsuits challenging new voting rules that opponents claim unfairly discriminate against minority voters. Comic journalist Andy Warner explains, in three illustrated parts, the history of the Voting Rights Act, what the Supreme Court’s recent decision did and what the state of voting looks like today. Click on the images below to view as a slideshow, or read the comics in their entirety.

Think you know your state’s voting rules? Better check again before heading to the polls next month.

Depending on where you live, those rules might have changed since the last time you voted. And those changes could affect outcomes in a number of tightly contested congressional races that will determine which party controls the U.S. Senate.

22 states have enacted new voting restrictions since the 2010 election, according to the the Brennan Center for Justice, a nonprofit law and policy institute that advocates for more inclusive voting policies. This November marks the first time the majority of those new laws will be in place, resulting is an ever-shifting landscape of wildly inconsistent and often confusing election laws.

Brennan Center for Justice (click image to access interactive map)

Passed mainly in Republican-led state legislatures, with the stated intention of reducing voter fraud, the new laws range from photo ID requirements and early voting cutbacks to registration restrictions and voting rights limitations for ex-felons.

Voter identification requirements remain the most controversial of these laws. Because certain kinds of ID, particularly photo IDs, often require administrative fees to procure (like a drivers’ license), opponents claim the laws is tantamount to a poll tax. Laws in 34 states require voters to show some form of identification at the polls, and as of mid-October, 31 of these laws were in force, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

National Conference of State Legislatures (click image to access interactive map)

Opponents argue that stricter voting laws disproportionately suppress turnout among students, African-Americans and low-income voters, groups that tend to vote democratic. They point to numerous non-partisan studies showing that voter fraud is exceptionally rare and statistically insignificant. In one 2012 analysis — which advocates of stricter voting laws were quickly dismissed — the student reporting agency News21 looked at more than 2,000 cases of alleged voter fraud around the country that have reported since the 2000 election. Of these, it found only 10 actual instances of voter impersonation, the equivalent of roughly one case for every 15 million voters.

There’s less evidence, however, about how much restrictive voting laws actually suppress turnout on Election Day. But while the specific impact is unclear, Democrats fear that even a 1 or 2 percent decline in participation among registered voters in tightly contested congressional and gubernatorial races could be enough to sway the outcome.

The Brennan Center characterizes the recent slate of new voter restriction laws as the most widespread effort to restrict access to the polls since the passage of racist Jim Crow laws adopted throughout the South in the decades after Reconstruction. It’s an effort that’s intensified since 2013 Supreme Court ruling weakening the 1965 Voting Rights Act by allowing jurisdictions with a history of voter suppression to enact new voting laws without seeking approval from the federal government.

And then there are those last minute changes …

Furthering the confusion, seven of the newly enacted state laws have been challenged in court by voting advocates, charging that the new rules discriminate against certain groups of voters. And with just weeks before election day, a cascade of recent court rulings have led to last minute changes in statewide voter rules, causing panic among election officials, and potentially affecting the outcomes of races.

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld an Ohio law that cut early voting in the state by one week. But in a separate ruling the court blocked Wisconsin from implementing its 2011 photo ID law on the grounds that there wasn’t enough time for it to be implemented before the general election.

Meanwhile, on October 14 a federal appeals court temporarily reinstated Texas’ strict photo voter ID law after it had been struck down a week earlier by a lower court. And just days before the start of early voting in Arkansas, that state’s highest court struck down a law requiring voters to show photo ID.

Brennan Center for Justice (click for interactive version)

No precedent in the Constitution

“It’s really not one America when it comes to voting,” Judith Brown-Dianis of the Advancement Project explains in the recent documentary Electoral Dysfunction.

In fact, the text of the original Constitution doesn’t actually include a single mention of voting rights; the founders left this to the discretion of the states. Only subsequent amendments (namely, the 15th, 19th, 23rd and 26th) prevent voting rights from being denied to certain formerly disenfranchised populations (people of color, women, 18 to 20 year olds). As long as states adhere to those rules, they are largely free to determine their own voting laws.

“The Constitution, at the nation’s birth, made no mention of voting rights whatsoever,” Harvard University History Professor Alex Keyssar notes in the documentary. “[The Founders] were unsure, in fact, whether voting was a right or a privilege. And if it was a right, they weren’t sure who the right actually belonged to.”

The ambiguity continues to play out today. It’s why in a conservative state like Alabama, voters are strictly required to show photo ID, and anyone who’s ever committed a felony permanently loses the right to vote, whereas in a liberal state like Vermont no identification is required, and even prisoners can cast ballots.

How it works

The top-two system made its debut in 2012 after voters approved Proposition 14 two years earlier. But this is the first primary where the new rules take effect in statewide races.

The basic gist: you can vote for any candidate in a particular race regardless of political party affiliation. That’s because every candidate from every party is lumped together in one big political crock pot (yes, that’s crock, not crack). And for most state races, any voter can choose a candidate from any party.

The two candidates – from any party – that get the most votes in the primary will then face each other in the general election in November.

Part of a sample ballot (California Legislative Analyst’s Office)

These new rules apply to all legislative and state races, but not the presidential race.

So for some races this year, you may have noticed a surprisingly long list of candidates on your ballot. That’s because you’re going to see the names of everyone from every party who’s running for that office.

For instance:

If two Republicans, two Democrats, and one Libertarian are all running in a primary election for a state assembly seat in your district, you can now vote for any candidate you want, regardless of your own party affiliation. And no matter how many different candidates from different parties are in the primary race, only two candidates will make it to general election.

One of the interesting potential outcomes of this new system is that some primary races could result in two candidates from the same party facing each other in the general election (if they respectively get the first and second highest amount of votes in the primary).

And unlike the old system, third party candidates who aren’t within the top two in the primary, won’t be on the ballot in November. The new rule also eliminates the possibility of adding on write-in candidates in the general election (again, with the exception of the presidential election).

For more on how the process works, Alameda County provides a good explanation with visuals.

What’s the point of this?

Prop 14 was championed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger as a means of reforming California’s bitterly divided political system and breaking the gridlock in Sacramento. With a war chest of nearly $5 million, proponents of the measure made the case that an open primary process would force candidates to appeal to voters across party lines and reach a larger swath of the public, resulting in a less divided class of elected officials. Backers also argued that increasing the number of choices on the ballot would boost voter turnout and give more political voice to California’s growing contingent of independent voters (who make up about 20 percent of the electorate).

On the other side of the debate, both the state’s Republican and Democratic party leaders, as well as a number of smaller parties and big labor unions, strongly denounced the measure on grounds that it would make primary campaigns significantly more expensive (because candidates would need to appeal to voters across party lines) and thus benefit the richest candidates with the most name recognition. Opponents also argued that it would decimate the authority of individual political parties and all but eliminate opportunities for third party candidates to advance to the general election (remember that in the old system, one candidate from every party running in the primary was was guaranteed a spot in November).

In the end, though, nearly 54 percent of voters approved the measure, an indication of the public’s growing discontent with California’s political establishment. Some analysts, however, suggested that many of the voters supporting the measure may not have fully understood what they were voting for. And interestingly, San Francisco and Orange County, on opposite ends of California’s political spectrum, were among the only counties to oppose it.

Déjà vu?

No — just California politics.

In 1996, voters approved Proposition 198, which instituted the “blanket primary.” The system was similar, in that voters could choose any candidate regardless of party affiliation. But it still resulted in one candidate from each party advancing to the general election.

The system was challenged in federal court and ultimately struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in a 7-2 decision on the basis that it violated a political party’s First Amendment right of association.

More recently, another attempt to institute open primaries in California appeared on the 2004 ballot, but got the smack-down.

Remember that catchy “I’m Just a Bill” cartoon from the 1970s? For many of us, it was our first civics lesson (and introduction to bell-bottoms). But given the intense gridlock in today’s Congress — which will go down as one of the least productive in history — it’s fair to say that the lovable cartoon may have missed a few steps in explaining how laws are made. To fill in the gaps, the news explainer site Vox created a revised version for this era of congressional dysfunction. It’s modeled on the steps leading to the passage of the DATA Act, a recent bill that actually survived the gauntlet of Capital Hill.

[Article continues below videos]

The original version …

Although the United States Congress holds a tremendous amount of power in determining the nation’s course, it’s had a really tough time getting much done recently. Sharp divisions between Democratic and Republican lawmakers — and the peculiar configuration in which the latter controls the House and the former the Senate — has left the 112th Congress in a state of near-paralysis, unable to tackle some of the nation’s most pressing problems (remember immigration reform?). In fact, the current Congress is on track to being the least productive in recent history: in 2013, just 58 bills became law — and many of those dealt with naming post offices or transferring federal lands. 2014 hasn’t been much better: so far, just 46 bills have made it out alive.

As a result, America’s public approval of Congress has hit all time lows in recent years, dipping to 9 percent in 2013, according to a Gallup poll. That makes it less popular than the Internal Revenue Service (40%) or BP during the 2010 Gulf oil spill (16%). Even Paris Hilton, in 2005, got a higher approval rating (15%). On the bright side, though, Americans still like Congress a little more than Fidel Castro (5%, in 2008).

The Supreme Court on Wednesday removed a 40-year-old cap on the total amount of cash individuals can contribute to political candidates and party committees. The latest in a string of rulings chipping away at longstanding campaign finance limits, the court’s 5-to-4 decision in McCutcheon v. Federal Elections Commission is expected to let new flood of money pour into America’s already cash-saturated political process.

What the decision actually does

It removes the cap on the combined amount of cash that any one person can directly give to candidates running for federal office, or to political party committees.Although the court maintained the existing cap of $5,200 as the most any donor can directly give to a single candidate, it got rid of the limits on combined contributions.

Up until now, an individual donor could give no more than $48,600 in combined contributions to candidates, and no more than $74,600 in combined contributions to local and national party committees. Combined, $123,200 was the maximum amount a single contributor could give in a two year period. Now there is no limit.

To put that in perspective, let’s say a single donor were to give $5,200 to every single House and Senate candidate from one political party in an election with 468 House and Senate seats up for grabs. The total contribution would be $2,433,600. If you’ve got the money to burn, there’s nothing stopping you anymore. A nice infographic in the Washington Post illustrates the new formulas.

What was the logic behind the court’s ruling?

The five justices in the majority are the usual suspects: the same conservative side of the bench responsible for striking down at least five other campaign finance restrictions over the last eight years, including the landmark Citizens United decision in 2010. In so doing, the court has succeeded in chipping away at many of the election spending reforms from the 1970s that came about in the wake of the Watergate scandal.

Like in previous cases, the McCutcheon ruling was rooted in the majority’s strongly held conviction that political money is a form of speech protected under the First Amendment, and that the government should have only a limited role in regulating it.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts said that the existing contribution limits violated the First Amendment. While noting that some level of government regulation of campaign finance is necessary to prevent and root out corruption, he argued that placing aggregate limits on campaign contributions ultimately stifles constitutionally protected political speech.

“There is no right more basic in our democracy than the right to participate in electing our political leaders … The government may no more restrict how many candidates or causes a donor may support than it may tell a newspaper how many candidates it may endorse … We do not doubt the compelling nature of the “collective” interest in preventing corruption in the electoral process. We permit Congress to pursue that interest only so long as it does not unnecessarily infringe an individual’s right to freedom of speech.”

How did the dissent respond?

Not cheerfully. In his fervent dissenting opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer argued that the decision directly increases the power and influence of the wealthy elite while muffling the voices of the greater public. Removing spending limits, he said, invites corruption and further encourages a big money, pay-to-play political process.

“In reality, as the history of campaign finance reform shows and as our earlier cases on the subject have recog­nized, the anticorruption interest that drives Congress to regulate campaign contributions is a far broader, more important interest than the plurality acknowledges. It is an interest in maintaining the integrity of our public governmental institutions. And it is an interest rooted in the Constitution and in the First Amendment itself … Where enough money calls the tune, the general public will not be heard. Inso­far as corruption cuts the link between political thought and political action, a free marketplace of political ideas loses its point.”

How did the case originate, and who is this McCutcheon guy?

The case was jointly brought by plaintiffs Shaun McCutcheon, a wealthy conservative Alabama businessman, and the Republican National Committee. McCutcheon had contributed $33,000 to 16 candidates running for federal office in the 2012 election. He said he wanted to give $1,776 each to 12 more candidates, but was prevented from doing so because of the existing spending cap.

In September 2012, a federal district court dismissed the suit on the grounds that the aggregate spending limits adequately withstood First Amendment scrutiny and that the government may justify such regulation as as a means of preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption.

Shortly thereafter, the plaintiffs filed their appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

What’s the difference between this and Citizens United?

Citizens United v. FEC, the landmark 2010 ruling, struck down limits on independent political spending by corporations and unions. It allowed them to make undisclosed contributions of unlimited amounts of money to “independent expenditure” organizations that work on behalf of candidates but do not directly coordinate with them. A subsequent lower court decision allowed individuals to donate unlimited sums to these super PACs as well. The ruling, however, didn’t address caps on direct contributions to candidates.

Conversely, McCutcheon does not apply at all to corporations or unions, and it still requires full donor disclosure. And while the decision gives individual donors the green light to make unlimited aggregate contributions to campaigns or parties, it still limits the amount that can be given to any one campaign or party. But unlike Citizens United, the new flow of money allowed by this decision will be controlled directly by candidates and parties.

The map below, created by designer/programmer Lewis Lehe, shows state-by-state felon voting laws and population impacts as reported by the The Sentencing Project, based on 2010 data. Note: among the eleven states that deny voting rights to those who have completed their full sentences (including parole), restrictions vary significantly, and often depend on the severity of the crime. A good overview of each state’s specific restrictions can be found at ProCon.org.

[See article below map]

The United States stands out as one of the strictest nations in the world in denying voting rights to convicted felons. As of 2010, more than 5.8 million Americans — or about 2.5 percent of the voting age population — were unable to vote due to a current or previous felony conviction, according to a report by The Sentencing Project. That’s roughly one in every 40 adults in America.

Each state has its own felon voting laws, and all but two — Maine and Vermont are the only states that allow prisoners to vote — have some kind of disenfranchisement law that prevents current or former offenders from casting their ballots. The degree of severity varies dramatically by state and crime. The report found that nearly half of the disenfranchised population lives in the eleven states where voting rights for ex-felons are only conditionally restored.

Disenfranchisement laws disproportionately affect African Americans: in 2010, 1 of every 13 African Americans of voting age — about 7.7 percent nationally — was disenfranchised, a rate more than four times greater than with non-African Americans. In some of the strictest states — including Florida, Kentucky and Virginia — more than 20 percent of the African American population was disenfranchised, the report found.

In February, Attorney General Eric Holder called on the states with some of the strictest laws to restore voting rights to felons after their release from prison.

“It is time to fundamentally reconsider laws that permanently disenfranchise people who are no longer under federal or state supervision,” said Holder during an address at Georgetown University. “By perpetuating the stigma and isolation imposed on formerly incarcerated individuals, these laws increase the likelihood they will commit future crimes.”

]]>http://blogs.kqed.org/lowdown/2014/02/26/felon-voting/feed/5DoNow_VoterImageVisualization: How America Responded to the State of the Union via Tweethttp://blogs.kqed.org/lowdown/2014/01/29/state-of-the-union/
http://blogs.kqed.org/lowdown/2014/01/29/state-of-the-union/#commentsWed, 29 Jan 2014 21:55:59 +0000http://blogs.kqed.org/lowdown/?p=11602

As President Obama delivered his fifth State of the Union address last night, the Twittersphere was, unsurprisingly, abuzz with commentary and reactions. To show which parts of the speech struck a chord — or a nerve — Twitter data viz whiz Nicolas Belmonte created the following interactive visualization. It attempts to gauge the resonance of the various topics Obama addressed by linking every paragraph in the speech to the thousands of Tweets submitted directly in response, and geographically tracing where those Tweets originated.

The chart’s line thickness represents the frequency at which specific topics were discussed on Twitter at that given moment. Clicking on any moment on the timeline spans to the exact paragraph referenced in the transcript, with a map displaying the state-by-state level of Twitter engagement in response to that topic.

The image at right shows the three moments of the speech that spurred the most conversation, as measured in tweets per minute (according to Twitter’s analysis). Not far behind were tweets responses to Obama’s discussion of climate change and his reference to House Speaker John Boehner as the “son of a barkeeper.”